EXCERPT:
As I follow the still-brewing storm over new health insurance mandates for Catholic institutions, I cannot help filtering everything I’ve read and hear through my recent experience.
…That experience cuts through much of the overheated rhetoric we’re getting from right wingers, left wingers, bishops, pundits, and politicians, to shed light on the real situation in the Catholic Church.
I am not sure is going on here, but I am pretty sure it has something to do with the ancient notion of sensus fidelium—the “sense of the faithful.”
Among Catholics thinkers and teachers, there is general agreement that the sensus fidelium exists, and also that it matters. But there agreement ends, for what it means in practice--and how it works--is highly disputed.
Catholics on the right see sensus fidelium exercised only when rank and file Catholics staunchly support official Catholic teaching on a particular matter. They tend not to accept sensus fidelium working as a corrective for erroneous teachings when the rank and file supports change.
Those on the left believe that when rank and file Catholics disagree with official teaching in overwhelming numbers, the teaching should be adapted to a more acceptable position.
Those on the right respond that this is tantamount to letting polls govern the Church, and they sometimes go so far as to suggest that such “dissenters” do not belong to the “faithful” at all.
…
I prefer to take a third view, and I believe this view can help us to understand the current troubles over contraception.
At Vatican II (1962-1965), the Council Fathers decided to clarify the official understanding of sensus fidelium this way:
"The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One (cf. Jn 2:20, 27), cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole people's supernatural discernment in matters of faith when 'from the bishops down to the last of the lay faithful' (St. Augustine, De Praed. Sanct. 14, 27:PL 44, 980) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the People of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the Word of God (cf. 1 Thes. 2:13). Through it, the People of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3), penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life." -Lumen Gentium, No. 12
The key words here are “the entire body” and “from the bishops down to the last of the lay faithful.” This means that, when we speak of sensus fidelium, we do not restrict “faithful” to the laity alone. “Faithful” means everyone.
The Council also denotes the main function of sensus fidelium: Since it cannot err, it provides evidence (or even guarantees) that the church is teaching and acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
…
So the notion of sensus fidelium can function two ways: (1) its presence provides evidence that we have achieved a faith we are certain cannot err, but (2) its absence shows that we have not yet achieved such certainty; it shows us what work still needs to be done.
…
Back to my experience in parish work. On the matter of contraception, the people I meet raise no voice in dissent of official Catholic teaching. Instead, they feel, speak, and act as if it were not relevant.
This reflects, of course, the attitudes and behaviors of nearly all American Catholics. Current statistics indicate that 98% of all Catholic women of childbearing age have use contraceptives, and apparently (presuming the experience in confessions of the pastors I meet is typical) they do so with a clear conscience.
This does not mean any of these people are right, or that the official teaching is wrong. It does not mean a poll should determine Church teaching. But it does mean that there is a wide gap between official teaching and the practice of rank and file Catholics…And this gap means we do not have “universal agreement.”
To me, this looks like another classic case of the failure to achieve a sensus fidelium on a question of faith and morals. Such a dramatic and longstanding failure is extremely rare in Catholic life. I cannot name another similar case during my lifetime, or even in the last few centuries.
What does it mean? It means that the sensus fidelium which “cannot err” is lacking, is absent. It means we still await the formation of a universal consensus from “bishops on down.” It means the matter is not settled. It means unfinished business. It means work yet to be done.
Well old chum, you have certainly grown wise with the wisdom of the world. If 98% of Catholics do something, it must be O.K. If the government decrees that (non-dissenting) Catholics must violate their consciences or violate the law, tant pis; after all B. Swain et al have to pay the cost of deporting illegal aliens so somehow it's a wash... or something like that.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, you can't believe this rubbish - can you? There may be some logic in the bits of your propositions, but in the end there's no... reason in your reasoning!
Of particular note - one would hope you are not so ill-informed or even deluded to continue believing the several "It does not[s]" from your number which attempts to defend the egregious HHS mandate. Each has been convincingly shown to be false, and even the Clarks and Hubbards of the episcopate have stirred beyond their lukewarm cocoons and condemned the thing! If not for Fran Kissling et al it'd be Swain contra mundum, or should I say solus contra ecclesiam?
And really old bean, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for even pretending to equate the authentic sensus Catholicus with a simple consensus or even worse an opinion poll! Didn't your mother ever tell you that wrong was wrong even when everyone was doing it? Not that the much-ballyhoo'ed '98%' figure is accurate, even the Guttmacher folks don't swallow that one. But it makes a convenient cudgel, especially when it can be qualifed with weasel words distancing oneself from the veracity of the stat. And if you want to cherry-pick some numbers, how about the report that 50% (presumably including the mythical 98%) are opposed to the coercion contained in the mandate?
Bernie, you're getting too old for this sort of self-delusion. The day draws ever closer when we will no longer see darkly, and we shall stand naked and alone before eternity to face the consequences of our actions. The modern sensus Catholicus probably rejects that one too, do you?
Too bad your pig-Latin pseudonym not only hides your self-important identity—it also seems to mask your vision, since you see and object to things I did not write.
ReplyDeletePerhaps that’s why my reasoning is lost on you. It may help if I simply note facts:
-I never said ANYTHING was O.K. just because most people do it.
-I never said it was okay for the government to decree violation of conscience. I said it has not happened in this case.
-I never cited any opinion poll, nor did I say such polls create a consensus or should govern Church life. I said just the opposite.
-I never said I support the “coercion contained in” the HHS mandate. In fact, I explicitly said I opposed it and hoped it would be reversed.
Your repeated impulse to attack straw men holds a lesson: Disdaining logic leads one astray.